Question

Antitrust laws are intended to limit anticompetitive behavior, do you think it intended result has been accomplished and whether this is good or bad for business?

Answer 1

There are numerous examples in the recent past that anti-trust cases are filed and successfully proved regarding the anti-competitive behavior of the big companies in the business environment. It proves that anti-competitive measures taken up in the form of Sherman Act and Clayton Act have successfully achieved the objectives in the US business environment. For example, a case against Microsoft was filed regarding the bundling of internet explorer with windows and it was considered to be anti-competitive w.r.t. the internet browser, Netscape navigator. In another case, Apple and other five publishers were held responsible for raising the price of the e-books as anti-competitive policy and exploiting the consumers. So, these laws have helped the authorities to regulate the top companies also if they intend to manipulate the market. Hence, it can be concluded that these laws have achieved the objective, for that it was created.
These laws are good for the business, because it creates an opportunity for the smaller firms to operate and succeed. Hence, these laws, facilitate the creation of a business environment that promotes private property rights and creates opportunity for all the smaller or bigger firms if they have quality products and services. It is the reason that there are numerous patents and copyrights are filed in the USA alone by the individuals, smaller firms and big MNCs. So, the monopoly power is prevented and fair competition is promoted. It also favors the consumers with superior quality, competitive price and more alternative available to them.